Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into the mess it is today.
Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally run system, it all becomes much simpler.
Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.
Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....
As I've said, go and find out the fact, or even half the facts before spouting your far right-wing clap.
Well that argument would hold up if it was still the GPO and not a private company that has modernised using there own funds....
But not the expensive cable networks...
As I said, they tried to provide their own networks but the cost was to great, now they are trying to sponge off BT via Oftel.
Fell off the back of your van? What did the boss say?
That would be impossible.
No I don't mean.
It is certainly not far right wing - simply thinking outside the preconceived notion that the state should deliver health care. The only need is the financial provision.
Could you explain that in English?
You didn't read what I said. Most of the copper infrastructure was in the ground prior to privatisation of BT. Post privatisation investment has largely been in active infrastructure such as telephone switches which LLU doesn't use.
You are confused about the business dynamic of the industry.
Two extra bales of hay for Dobbin to keep quiet I should think ;-)
And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time. The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?
Niel.
Can you use a 5A socket? Just a thought, or an IEC socket.
Regards Capitol
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:44:03 -0000, ":::Jerry::::" strung together this:
He has, none of us have seen anything whatsoever.
Yes it is, as I said, find out the facts, you are in effect suggesting that we go over to a system of medical insurance funded health care.
Well, suggesting the destruction of a working health system that treats on need, rich or poor, is certainly the thinking of the far right - heck, even Maggie blocked those suggestion, and they were thought about by some of her (lets say) more nutty 'advisers'.
Taking telecom's back into public ownership and then funding it from taxation.
The fact is, this country would never have had a national telecom's service if it had been left to the 'venture capalists' of the day, at best large towns or cities would have been invested in (like Hull was) and there would have been the railways own telecom's system.
The marketeers at all of the service providers in the retail market screwed themselves a couple of years ago by using the term 'broadband' to describe any connectivity having a speed of greater than ISDN speed. They also believed their own bullshit about the services it could provide, such as entertainment quality video on demand.
The original definition of broadband related to cable TV technology with RF spectrum split into multiple channels each able to deliver entertainment quality video for the TV and in some cases to use spare channels for data. Predominantly, the video was delivered in analogue format and the technology was the basis of analogue CATV.
Other technologies such as DVB-C (digital transmission of more channels of video in the analogue channels) and quality streaming of video over IP have come along, so the original definition of it being a pure RF medium have fallen by the wayside.
In effect, the correct definition of broadband, in terms of what the service should be able to deliver have remained as the ability to deliver entertainment quality video on TV to consumers as well as high speed network connectivity.
During the dotcom boom, the vendors such as Real Networks and Microsoft heavily promoted their originally crappy internet streaming video running at 56k. This is an interesting toy, but not anywhere near the league required for entertainment purposes. 2Mbits and preferably 5 are needed for that on a large screen.
The 200k-odd streams are a world better than 56k, but still nowhere near entertainment quality.
In the meantime, the marketeers, believing that 500k had the potential to do this and likely the catchy 'broadband' name, sold the hell out of it.
The result is that 500k is an interesting speed for internet access for consumers but doesn't address the content applications to any useful degree. In effect, the marketeers have screwed themselves.
In the meantime, Sky have come along and offer a scheduled movies "on demand" with their Box Office product. They are doing pretty well with subscriptions.
There certainly is a market for video on demand services in the home, but the quality will have to be high and the bandwidth there to match.
Most of the other applications that have been discussed fall into this category as well. THe technology has been overhyped and people's expectations have been set that they can get a lot for a little.
Hmm, I wonder if the USA knows about this?
Regards Capitol
Oh good grief. What utter communist bullshit.
If you look at the former state run telcos across Europe, they fall into several bands.
- Those who were privatised completely early on such as BT have been the most successful in the market.
- Those who were privatised later, but where the government retained share control (i.e. arms length influence) have done reasonably well but mostly on a regional or national basis only
- Those who were privatised late and have struggled as a result, even in their home market.
The reason is startlingly obvious. Governments do not run businesses well.
Even the former large communist states have privatised telecoms, so only a total idiot would suggest a reversal into state ownership.
Only the diehards like North Korea and Cuba promote this nonsense and they are hardly shining examples of anything.
I can't understand why the cable boys didn't use fibre - I can't see it would have been that much more. Rumour has it the feeds to each area are anyway.
I've not got it, but my neighbour has. Just installed a Freeview box for her and got a chance to play with it. Not nearly as good as off air. Suppose their modulators are cheap and cheerful too.
Two is fine for me. In other homes 5 is adequate.
I recommend them when they are the ideal solution. They work well when I recommend them. Not knowing anything you would not see this.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.